Then They Came For The Tenured

One of my gags is to point out that if the people flooding over the Rio Grande had law degrees, the American Bar Association would make Pat Buchanan look like an open borders fanatic. The penalties for hiring illegal lawyers would be draconian, involving torture and slow death. The border would make the DMZ look like Golden Gate Park.

In America following WW2, it was a great time to be working and middle class. If you had anything on the ball and a modest amount of self-control, you could create a fine life for yourself and your family. The twenty year period following the war was the heyday of middle-class America.

Just as the 1950’s were not a great time for the talented ten percent of blacks, it was not a great time for the cognitive elite of white America. No great fortunes were amassed in the 50’s and 60’s, like we saw in the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th. Men got rich, but not over-class rich. There was simply no way to transfer large chunks of middle-class wealth to the ruling class.

Things changed in the 70’s and by the 1980’s, the technological revolution was setting the stage for a new robber baron class to emerge. First we allowed the financial class to auction off the manufacturing base to the third world. Then all sorts of new value transference schemes were created allowing Silicon Valley to boom. Of course, government metastasized.

This great concentration of wealth over the last three decades has been spurred on by the reckless enthusiasm of the managerial class. Educated people who should have known better cheered on the financialization of the economy by Wall Street and the assault on the culture through mass immigration. After all, the “new money” was bankrolling the universities and think tanks.

This is nowhere more obvious than in our university system. Even the most pedestrian of colleges are staffed with tenured radicals and overgrown hippies preaching nonsense. Middle class children are saddled with tens of thousands in debt for an education that used to be free in pubic school. The basic training for a work life is loaded down with agit-prop of no value in a human society.

The crushing reality of mathematics, however, may finally be reaching these tenured radicals on the college campus.

Lawmakers in Wisconsin advanced a daring proposal made by Gov. Scott Walker that would eliminate state laws guaranteeing faculty tenure at state universities, a dramatic potential shift that has faculty and administrators up in arms.

The Wisconsin legislature’s Joint Finance Committee voted 12-4 Friday to approve a proposal that would eliminate tenure from state law and allow tenured faculty to be laid off even if a school isn’t in a declared financial emergency. The proposal would also weaken faculty influence in setting policy and would cut the University of Wisconsin (UW)’s budget by $250 million over the next two years, down from a $300 million cut that was proposed by Walker.

The elimination of tenure protections was first suggested by Walker back in February, but was considered a longshot proposal. The Joint Finance Committee, however, is tremendously influential, and its decision to send the rollback to the floor of the legislature is seen as making passage much more likely.

By itself, the measure wouldn’t end tenure, but it would remove the current protections it has under state law and allow universities to set their own policies on the matter. In response, current UW system president Ray Cross said the school’s board of regents will act to enshrine tenure as university policy in a meeting later this week. No statement of the university’s intent can match the power of state law, though.

All movements become a business and then a racket. Tenure was seen as a way to increase discourse on campus in an era when the dominant religion was Christianity. It allowed the educated to challenge the prevailing orthodoxy. As Christianity died off, the New Religion turned tenure into a jobs racket for members of the faith. If you are not an adherent, you will never get tenure at an American university.

The result is our centers of training and learning have been transformed into monasteries of lunacy, divorced from financial reality and the market economy. If you want to have a nice life, you must pay these gatekeepers for the credential and join, to some degree, their cult. What was intended to be an asset to a thriving people has become another anchor on a sinking culture.

The math of the managerial state means the top must consume the middle in the name of the bottom. The trouble is the middle is finite, meaning the erosion of the lower middle, becomes an erosion of the middle. Then it is onto the upper middle-classes. The rot is now reaching those with advanced degrees. Maybe those alarm bells going off in the universities will wake some of these people up. Maybe it is too late.

Mutilating the Mentally Ill

Steve Sailer has a post up highlighting the general lunacy of the Bruce Jenner story. The thing no one says in all of this is we are required to pretend, along with Jenner, that he is a woman and it is perfectly normal for him to have done what he has done to himself. No amount of pretending, however, can change the fact we all know it is not real. Jenner is not a woman.

In fact, Jenner is a person with a serious mental illness. If he were convinced, let’s say, that he could fly, society would take custody of him in order to prevent him from jumping off a building. He would be deemed a danger to himself and others. Similarly, if he started slashing his wrists or stabbing himself, he would be remanded to a psychiatric facility and appropriately restrained so he could not mutilate himself.

Biology tells us that humans come in one of two sexes. Not genders. Sexes. We know that some small portion of men and women are sexually abnormal, being attracted to the same sex. Similarly, some humans appear to have no sex drive, while others have an all-consuming sex drive. Like any other abnormality, these are exceptions to the standard.

Where there is no exception is in the presence of a Y-chromosome. If you have that, you are biologically male. About 1-in-1000 have two or more X-chromosomes and a Y-chromosome. These people are not a third sex as there are no documented cases in which both types of gonadal tissue function. In other words, they express as male or female, not both or some third option.

This is basic biology. If someone claimed that their head was on backwards or that they had eight legs, this conflict with observable biological reality would be proof of mental defect. The question, therefore, is why this other type of mental illness is being treated as a triumph, rather than insanity. The Sailer post argues, in its own way, that this has some utility to the Cult of Modern Liberalism.

Most normal people seem to think it is a part of the war on white men or the general attack on traditional western sensibilities. I think that’s the Sailer line. His subsequent post from Theodore Dalrymple adds in the need to crush and humiliate the people. I think that was certainly true in the authoritarian societies Dalrymple was observing. Corrupt the man and you break the man.

There’s more here though, in this denial of biology. Blank slate types used to claim that maleness and femaleness were 100% cultural. That’s largely been forgotten, but I’m old enough to recall when it was an article of faith amongst Progressives. It’s what was behind the push to put girls into sports in the 1970’s. That way, girls could learn to be competitive, just like the boys!

That turned out to be a bust. Women’s professional sports are mostly for lesbians. A typical crowd at a WNBA game is wearing flannel and comfortable shoes. Normal females will play sports until they discover boys and then their interests change. They may keep playing, but it is a part of their competition for eligible males. In other words, girl’s sports remained girl’s sports.

I wonder if what we’re seeing here is a renewed effort to claim that sex is a cultural artifact. After all, if Bruce Jenner can change sexes, then there’s no such thing as sex. That is the unsaid truth of egalitarianism. If everyone is the same, then no one really exists as a unique individual. Egalitarianism is a nullification of humanity and what better way to prove that than to change someone’s sex?

Of course, it could simply be wholesale what has long been observed retail. The person who is willing to break one social convention is likely to break others. Serial killers are often spurred on by the exhilaration from the previous act. Potheads are more likely to try coke and then meth than is the teetotaler. Similarly, a society that has broken from its traditional constraints is always on the prowl for some new high, some new adventure in cultural nullification.

Maybe that’s all there is to this. For as long as I have been alive, the worst thing you could say about someone is that they are average or normal. Everyone invests a maximum amount of time proving they are a special little snowflake, God’s special angel. That usually means being a nuisance or social irritant. Having run out of ways to be weird, we’re now onto mutilating the mentally ill.

The Nature of the People

This comment from ErisGuy raises an interesting question.

It’s more than strong- vs weak-horse. The character of the people has changed. They are overly deferential to their rulers, eager to learn how to behave and what to think from movie stars and to be guided by politicians. They no longer wish to make their own decisions, and desire only that others supply peace of mind.

Islam means submission. In their hearts they have submitted. Christianity means salvation. They know longer know “from what.”

Has the character of Western people changed in the last fifty years? Science tells us that large scale shifts in culture are going to take multiple generations. Those changes in culture will change the people in some way, but the sluggishness of the biological process puts a natural brake on things. The national character of Britain in 1959, for example, was not all that different from that of 1859.

But, it is hard to get around the fact that 80% of people in the Anglosphere went to Mass on Sunday just a few generations ago. Today, 80% would be hard pressed to name the nearest church. America is more Christian than Britain, but that’s changing quickly, it seems. Along with that change is a whole basket of social customs that were considered deranged a generation ago.

Of course, fifty years ago it was hard to broadcast propaganda to the whole nation. Not impossible, but not easy. Television was too new and even the power of radio was not fully understood. Governments were still using the old mass rally approach to propaganda, but adapting it to the new technology. It is only within the last thirty years or so that the ruling class has become skilled at the use of mass media.

It is said that Kennedy was the first politician to take advantage of TV, but his edge was accidental. He was good looking and his opponents were mugs. Nixon looked old even when he was young. Those who followed Kennedy did not build on his narrow use of TV. It was not until Reagan that we saw a politician employ the lessons of Hollywood and Madison Avenue to sell a candidate.

Team Clinton explicitly used Hollywood producers for the first time in a campaign. The highly polished campaign video is standard stuff now, but it was new in 1992. They also developed the idea of spin, whereby operatives would flood onto current affairs shows and monopolize the time chanting the campaign slogans. The idea of spin is common today, but it was Team Clinton that perfected it.

Has there been a more Riefenstahl-esque campaign than the selling of Obama? From beginning to end his was a use of mass media that the world had never seen. TV, radio, Internet, print, news shows, everything was saturated with the Obama message. They even had campaign videos automatically downloading to people’s DVR’s. I recall being in a party store and seeing Obama themed party supplies. Goebbels would have been gobsmacked by the efficient use of mass media by Team Obama.

What’s changed is not the character of the people, but the character of their rulers and their use of the institutions of social control. 200 years ago the state simply lacked the technological ability to monitor the daily lives of citizens. Instead, it had to be delegated. That put leadership down at the street level in every village and every block.

Compare Soviet Russia with modern China. In the Soviet Union, the party needed police on every corner to keep the population under control. That requires an enormous investment in bureaucracy, which ultimately bankrupted the system. China, in contrast, controls mass media and the currency. Both of which are possible in the modern technological age.

The Western managerial state is made possible through mass media. A single message can be broadcast to the whole public from a single source. More important is the ability to coordinate across platforms. Fifty years ago government had to politely ask Hollywood to support a war or social cause.

Today they seamlessly coordinate their efforts. The selling of ObamaCare is an obvious example as it was explicit. The White House had public ceremonies where they brought in Hollywood big shots and charged them with selling the program. At a more clandestine level, modern telecommunications makes coordination easy and seamless.

Of course, the fact that the great bulk of the public is plugged into the matrix most of their day makes it even easier to control public opinion. The people in charge wage multifaceted propaganda campaigns using TV, radio, social media, the interwebs and mobile devices. In a strange turn, all of us pay hundreds each month so the people in charge can give us instructions through our TV, the phone or the computer.

The question, of course, is whether the managerial state can survive mass media. The communications revolution may have let it flourish, but that does not mean it can arrest the mathematics. The crashing fertility rates in the West are what biologists would focus in on as a symptom of ecosystem decay. But, that’s over the horizon and I’ll be long gone by the time that question is answered.

Jerks Ruin Everything

I’m fond of pointing out that jerks and a-holes will ruin the best of plans. No matter how carefully you work out the details, some jerk will come a long and throw  a wrench in your plans. It’s just the nature of things in the modern world. Everyone is walking around with a sense of entitlement and no one wants to be the heavy so the jerks run wild.

It’s a variation of the tragedy of the commons. In the standard model, individuals will figure out that it is to their individual advantage to take more than they contribute. This sets off a cascading effect leading to everyone taking and no one contributing.The most common examples are grazing lands or fisheries. Without regulation and policing, you get over grazing and over fishing.

The jerk variation is when jerks decide they have a right to do some activity simply because there is no explicit prohibition against it. Everyone will understand, for example, you should not let your dog poop on the bike path, at least without policing it. The jerk walks their dog on the bike path and let’s the chips fall where they may, as it were. When confronted, they respond by saying there’s no rule against it.

Another example of jerks make life hard for the rest of is right here on this site. Blogs and news stories invite comments. Jerks come along and fill the comments with work at home scams and penis pill ads. That means we have to have spam filters and police the comments sections. A good chunk of the code in a WordPress site is to fend off jerks trying to mess up a blog for no other reason than they are an asshole.

Anyway, the jerks are ruining the interwebs in a different way and that’s with ads. There are some sites I don’t bother to visit because they are so bogged down with popups, scripts and the worst thing of all, auto-playing videos. The guy who came up with that idea should be burned at the stake. There’s nothing worse than having some nonsense come blaring through your PC speakers as you feverishly look for the source.

Like most everyone, I have ad-blockers, script blockers, flash blockers, pop-up blockers, you name it, on my daily browser. I use Chrome as my video browser so if I wished to see something on youtube I open it in Chrome. My Mozilla-based browser has a flash blocker. It’s a bit ridiculous, but it is necessary to have a decent internet experience.

That is not without its consequences.

In coming weeks, a large analytic firm will release disturbing figures on the state of the ad blocking scene. According to someone who has advanced knowledge of the data, on desktop computers and on critical segments of the digital audience, the use of ad blocking keeps rising exponentially.

Along with The Netherlands, the German market is by far the most affected one by the ad blocking phenomenon. There, ad block use approaches 40% of the internet population. The reasons for the epidemic are unclear, but two elements are likely to play a role. First, AdBlock Plus (ABP), the most popular ad blocking software, has its roots in Cologne. Second, a cultural factor: German opposition to online advertising that manifests itself in the government’s obsessive anti-Google stance pushed by large media conglomerates such as Axel Springer SE.

In France too, ad blocking use is on the rise: about 30% of Gallic internet users are said to have installed extensions that remove banners and other modules; and the Millennials segment (born in 1980-2000) is twice more likely to use an ad blocker. The worst hit are Gaming sites with 80% to 90% of their views deprived of ads. More broadly, the more technophile an audience is, the more likely it is to resort to an ad blocking product.

The US market seems the less affected with 15%-17% of the internet population, again on average, using an ad blocking extension. Among the Millennials, the share is said to be twice the average. The UK is said to experience the same pattern.

Altogether, 300m people in the world have downloaded an ad blocking extension and about half have actually installed it.

This may not seem like a big deal, but ads are based on site views and site views assume the embedded ads are being seen.

For publishers, ad blockers are the elephant in the room: Everybody sees them, no one talks about it. The common understanding is that the first to speak up will be dead as it will acknowledge that the volume of ads actually delivered can in fact be 30% to 50% smaller than claimed — and invoiced. Publishers fear retaliation from media buying agencies — even though the ad community is quick to forget that it dug its own grave by flooding the web with intolerable amounts of promotional formats.

One of the comments gets it right:

There are sites that I don’t block ads at. They usually ask me not to block ads. They also treat me with respect. No pop-ups. Not autoplaying video or sound. Good privacy policies.

Sites that respect me, earn my respect in return. All other sites earn blocks instead.

If this drives them out of business, I’m good with that. What would be better is if they learned to treat their readers with respect.

And that would be a win win too. Not only would they not be blocked, but since blockers like adblock often slow the browser down, I would see ads and have a faster browsing experience.

I don’t solicit Breitbart because it is infested with ads created by the nation’s dickhead community. Loads of viruses are spread through embedded ads as well. If a site has no choice but to go the jerk route with their ads, then they should go out of business. The world has plenty of jerks. We’re full.